Misunderstandings of the origins and Nature of Canon 603 (yet again)

[[Dear Sister, I have been reading online about Catholic Hermits. This morning I read the following passage and was confused by it. I have read what you have written on the origins of canon 603 and that is very different from this. This is from a Catholic hermit who is quoting a canon lawyer:

The Canon lawyer discussed Canon 603, of 1983 and explained it was a revision of the 1917 Canon regarding eremitic life. He said that laws are created due to abuses and also because of desire by some to have "official stamp" of approval. Perhaps there have been those, he pointed out, who said they were going to live a life of stricter separation from the world or in prayer and fasting, but did not. The law provides for the Bishop to step in and correct the abuses, if the hermit has been publicly avowed, and those vows received by the Bishop. . . .He said it is a legality, of publicly approving the hermit in the name of the Church, of it being of public record, regardless of how many were actually at the profession of vows. He said that may be just the hermit and the Bishop. But it is done in the name of the Church, with the Bishop saying he receives the vows on behalf of the Church. . . . Next he spoke of private vows. He said what has been written and repeated: that the privately avowed hermit is also consecrated, also approved, and in keeping with the Church's allowance of this form as well. This type of hermit is approved, but the vows have not been received in the name of the Church by the Ordinary of the Diocese. It is not under Canon Law 603.

How accurate is this? Does it cause you to amend what you have written?]]

Well, there is truth (or accuracy) and untruth (inaccuracy) in this account. Since it is a third party reporting a conversation with an unknown canonist, and since some of it is not included, even in your question, let me be clear that my comment refers only to what is reported. Also, one can report various facts but mislead in import, and I think that is one thing that has happened in the reporting of this conversation. (That is, I think perhaps the canonist may have been misunderstood or inaccurately interpreted in some things.)

So, what is true or accurate here?

1) the notion that public vows do not have to do with notoriety or the number of people at the profession, but instead with the nature of the commitment is true. A public profession and/or consecration binds the person publicly to live out their vocation in the name of the Church. The Church accepts her commitment officially, and commissions her to live it out in her name. The Church as a whole has the necessary right to certain expectations of one in public vows because they no longer live their lives as a private person, but a public one. So too does the world at large have the right to certain expectations in this person's regard if they wear a habit and or use a title in public. They have private lives, of course, but may be called on when out and about by those for whom the title or habit are signs of availability.

2) public vows are received by a legitimate superior in the name of the Church. Private vows are witnessed but not received or made in the name of the Church. The canonist is, of course, completely correct in alluding to all of this.

3) certainly laws can be legislated or turned to because of abuses. The canonist (or his reporter) is entirely correct in this, but emphatically not in attributing the existence of Canon 603 to this situation.

And, so, what is not accurate?

1) Canon 603 was not formulated or promulgated as a revision of the 1917 Code. As I have noted before, it is an entirely new canon which recognizes solitary hermits for the very first time in universal law. The 1917 Code had no canon referring to hermits, and I am surprised a canonist would make such an error. In any case, Religious hermits and religious who desire to be hermits within their own communities are generally covered by the proper law of their congregations. For these no canon is necessary; it is when proper law does not allow for eremitical life that something more is necessary.

2) Canon 603 was not formulated to correct abuses, nor, as a completely new canon rather than a revision could it have been meant to do this. Instead it was written and promulgated because there were hermits who had been religious or monastics for many years and had therefore been solemnly professed for some time, but who, in order to live out a call to eremitical solitude they had experienced years after Solemn profession, had been required to seek dispensation of their vows and secularization. This was necessary because their congregations did not have proper law allowing such a life. A number of these formed a colony of hermits in British Columbia. Bishop De Roo and others begged the Fathers at Vatican II to recognize the eremitical life as a state of perfection. Canon 603 is the eventual result. Of course, it is true that a Bishop who found a regular pattern of infidelity to one's vows could require the canonically professed hermit to submit to discipline including dispensation from vows, but I have to say, this is something which is VERY far from most hermits' minds or concern. The place of law in their lives is both far more positive and also more marginal than this. (For a more detailed account of Bishop De Roo's arguments to the Fathers at the Council, please see  Bishop De Roo's arguments under "The Heart of the Matter".)

Further, though, I think this view of the place of law in a diocesan hermit's life, and certainly of the creation of Canon 603, has things backwards --- especially since this is an entirely new canon recognizing a new form of consecrated life. The notion that the Church would create a canon for obscure, almost wholly unknown lay hermits who were not living their vocations, or admit one to public vows because they need some kind of policing seems ludicrous to me. As noted, religious hermits would be covered already under both canon law and the proper law of their congregations. No new canon is necessary for these hermits, whether to correct "abuses" or to maintain the discipline of their lives.

The point is that no one is going to admit someone to public profession because that person needs policing, or because the Bishop requires a way to correct a badly lived private eremitical life.  After all, in such a situation one also has to ask, "In the absence of a canonical commitment with canonical obligations and rights, what is being abused? What is being abused when there are no norms to govern this life, and no legal obligations one has committed by vow or other sacred bond to fulfill?" In such a case, an instance where some sort of weirdness or irregularity was present, the person would never be admitted to public vows,  nor to the consecration and commissioning associated with these given the public rights and responsibilities entailed. The Church would never initiate one into a public vocation in order to correct irregularities (at least not in a situation where the vocation is rare and abuses few and far between). One needs a proven track record of living as a lay hermit or religious living in solitude before the Church admits one to public eremitical vows under canon 603. For those who have a contrary track record, allowing them to remain unrecognized in the relative obscurity of a private eremitical life is a far more effective and prudent way to deal with their badly lived eremitical life.

At the same time, it is true that the fact that a commitment is public and binding in law does indeed assist the hermit to be true to that commitment when it is tempting to "do as one wishes" instead ---- for whatever reason that occurs. Still, this is at best secondary to the primary reason for legal standing and public commitment and consecration, namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit is working in this way in the Church and has called the Church to mediate God's call to this vocation and recognize it as a state of perfection for the salvation of the World. Diocesan eremitical life is a gift of God to the Church and canon 603 is the way this vocation is regarded, governed, and nurtured.

3) With the exception of the term "consecrated", every discrete fact in the last paragraph is mainly accurate. It is when they are put together that I have real problems with what they convey. As I have written several times now, it is more appropriate to refer to lay hermits as dedicated than consecrated. This may be especially true if they have made private vows, but consecration, despite the common use of the term, is something only God can do ---- usually via the mediation of the Church as she acts officially in the name of God. However, the emphasis of the paragraph as a whole seems a bit off to me. Lay hermits as individuals are not explicitly approved by the Church. The vocation of lay hermit itself is certainly accepted and a lay person may pursue the vocation as she feels called, but her own vocation is not per se either discerned or "approved" by the Church in the same way that happens for one entering the consecrated state. The entire emphasis here seems to be part of an attempt to say diocesan hermits are "technically," "formally," or "legally" hermits so that the Bishop may correct abuses or because the hermit "needs this formality as a matter of pride", but that otherwise there is no difference between them and lay hermits. If this is so then I would take exception to its accuracy for it is way off base.

4) While Canon 603 profession is a matter of law, I don't think I would call it a legality anymore than I would allow it to be considered a mere formality, at least not as I understand these words. For me "legality" sounds like a contraction of "legal technicality." But law ordinarily follows life and in this matter law has recognized and affirmed the way the Holy Spirit is working in the Church. It has also specified the essential elements of the solitary eremitical vocation, and these are not mere legalities or legal technicalities. To be bound by public vows issues in a number of rights and responsibilities; they are indeed matters of law, but they are not simply "legalities."

5) While it is true that profession under canon 603 makes this person's specific commitment and commission to live this vocation a matter of public record, the matter goes much further. As noted, a public vow allows the public to have necessary expectations of the person so professed. It also allows the hermit to have specific expectations of the institutional church and vice versa. In short, the fact that one is publicly professed sets up an entire constellation of relationships, legal and otherwise, that did not exist before, whether or not the person was living as a hermit up until this point.

The Catholic theology of profession recognizes that vows are a matter of performative language. Something new comes to be that did not exist before. In terms of public vows per se, this happens especially in the hermit's very speaking of the vows and the Bishop's praying of the prayer of consecration. Specifically, the person enters or is initiated into a new and stable state of life. God's grace is experienced in a new way as well, and the person assumes new public rights and obligations while, as already mentioned, those who look to her have their own legitimate expectations. Law both recognizes and allows for this, but it is not, I don't think, appropriate to call all this a legality or a mere "formality" either.

So, to answer your last question, no this series of comments by a canonist does not change what I have written before about any of this; if the reporter is accurate, the canon lawyer is mistaken in several fundamental ways and also correct in others which I have written in agreement about.